[sf-core] Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq protest [sic]

[C. G. Estabrook]

You're right that the two are not politically equivalent.  One would
move towards ending the war in an effective and constitutional way, by
the power of the purse. They other would continue it, but in a way that
it is hoped would redound to the electoral credit of the Democrats.

Cindy Sheehan has pointed out what's realized by a large segment of the
populace: that if you're not in favor of ending the war, you're in favor
of continuing it.

I'm quite in favor of letting "a hundred flowers bloom, a thousand
schools of thought contend"  -- but I also note from the same source
that there's a difference between various ways of marching toward the
same goal, on the one hand, and various ways of marching to different
goals, on the other.

It's a tribute to the strength of anti-war sentiment in the US that the
established parties are now trying to co-opt it.  That didn't happen
during the Vietnam War until about 1968 (cf. the Robert Kennedy campaign
and Nixon's "secret plan for ending the war").  But we still continued
our policy of murder and atrocity (at an even greater rate than
currently in Iraq) for five more years.  --CGE


Robert Naiman wrote:
> 
> 
> This makes perfect sense, when you recognize the obvious fact that
> the two are not politically equivalent.
> 
> Of course, it's Carl's democratic right to call for a boycott of the 
> event that I'm trying to organize. Not very comradely, though. Can't 
> we let 100 flowers bloom?
> 
> On 7/16/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>> Let me get this straight: you're working to get 51 votes in the
>> Senate, because you can't get 41?
>> 
>> You're right that once elected members of the US Congress can say 
>> anything they want, they're not bound by their constituents' wishes
>> -- and, remarkably enough, the Congressional Democrats have chosen
>> as a group to reject doing what they were elected to do, end the
>> war.
>> 
>> Instead of ending the war (as they could) they want to use its 
>> unpopularity to denigrate the other faction and increase their own 
>> electoral chances. They're actually willing to prolong the war for
>> that.
>> 
>> Instead of participating in rallies organized by Democratic party
>> front groups, we should demand the Democrats do what they were
>> elected to do. --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Depends who you mean by "they."
>>> 
>>> 29 Senators voted for the Feingold-Reid withdrawal bill. The
>>> prospect of getting 41 Senators to filibuster war funding is
>>> fairly remote.
>>> 
>>> Sadly, we don't live in a European parliamentary democracy. For
>>> better and worse - mostly worse - there is no such thing as the
>>> "Democratic" position on anything. If you can win a Democratic
>>> primary and get elected, you can say anything you want.
>>> 
>>> But in any event, I submit that one doesn't have to support or
>>> oppose into any particular legislative strategy for ending the
>>> war to attend tomorrow's protest. It only takes 51 votes in the
>>> Senate, apparently, to confirm a Federalist Society hack to the
>>> Supreme Court. It should only require 51 votes to stop the war.
>>> 
>>> On 7/16/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu
> <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>
>>> <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>>>> This is a matter of barking up the wrong memorial.
>>>> 
>>>> If the Democrats were serious about ending the war, instead of
>>>> just wanting it to use the the war to benefit Democrats, they
>>>> could do
> so by
>>>> using the filibuster. Instead of voting further funding for the
>>>> war, which they continue to do, they could prevent any war
>>>> funding
> measures
>>>> from passing the Senate. That requires only 41 votes, which
>>>> they
> have.
>>>> 
>>>> --CGE
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>> There will be a protest tomorrow of the use of the Senate
> "filibuster"
>>>>> to block efforts to end the war in Iraq.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tuesday, 5pm, Veterans Memorial, Broadway and Main, Urbana.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://political.moveon.org/event/counterfilibuster/39352